Donald Davidson identifies three forms of knowledge which he believes to be irreducible and interdependent: knowledge of self, which is immediately known; knowledge of the outside world, which is simply caused by the events and objects around you, and thus depends on sense organs to be semi-immediately known, yet open to uncertainty; and knowledge of the minds of others, which is never immediately known. The standard approach to philosophy tries to reduce one of these forms of knowledge to one or two of the others, often leading to unanswerable questions. Davidson argues that all three varieties of knowledge are interdependent—that is, you cannot have any one without the other two. In this paper, I will primarily review Davidson’s argument of the interdependence of the three varieties of knowledge. I will then briefly discuss the plausibility of Davidson’s account and question if it truly can explain how we come to understand others’ feelings and emotions.
Review of Logical Interdependence
After reviewing the skepticisms that arise from the standard philosophical approach, Davidson suggests that we need a theory that will accommodate all three models while making sense of their relationships among each other; anything else will leave us with the question: how can we know the world in three completely different ways? Davidson’s argument begins with an exploration of why the three kinds of knowledge are each in their own right necessary and irreducible to the other two forms. His argument is on the basis that we simply could not go on without knowledge of the mental states of others, or knowledge of our own mental states.
Beliefs are a condition of said knowledge. Davidson’s argument deals a lot with the concept of objective trut...
... middle of paper ...
...dge to one or two of the other forms by suggesting that all three forms of knowledge are logically interdependent. He argues this interdependence through the context of beliefs, and objective truth, and communication. While there is a real-world example of how this theory could falter (i.e. autism), by expanding his theory to address this counterexample, Davidson’s three varieties of knowledge can actually go a long way in explaining how we come to understand the feelings, emotions, and mental states of others.
References
Andrews, K. (2002). Interpreting autism: a critique of Davidson on thought and language. Philosophical Psychology, 15(3). Retrieved from:
Davidson, D. (1991). Three varieties of knowledge. Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective (205- 220). New York: Oxford University Press.
Before completing the assignment of reading “Thinking in Pictures,” by Temple Grandin, I did not have much knowledge about autism. My only understanding was autism was some sort of neurological disorder that is seen similar to mentally handicapped individuals to someone with little understanding, like myself. I am very thankful to have been given an assignment like this one that gives me more knowledge of something I should already have in my line of work (though I am sure that was the whole purpose of the assignment, to educate the ignorant). I now have a better understanding of the cause, learning process and functioning of different levels of this defect.
The short documentary video “Prisoners of Silence” focuses on neurodevelopmental disorders with a clear emphasis on autism. It further delves into the rather controversial method of treatment for autism known as facilitated communication, which was first developed in the early 1990s. The video follows the introduction and ultimately the downfall of such a treatment as controversy quickly ensues after a series of sexual abuse cases and ample scientific evidence are produced.
Rationalists would claim that knowledge comes from reason or ideas, while empiricists would answer that knowledge is derived from the senses or impressions. The difference between these two philosophical schools of thought, with respect to the distinction between ideas and impressions, can be examined in order to determine how these schools determine the source of knowledge. The distinguishing factor that determines the perspective on the foundation of knowledge is the concept of the divine.
Ramachandran, Vilayanur S., and Lindsay S. Oberman. "Broken Mirrors: A Theory of Autism." Scientific American Journal. (2006): 62-69. Web. 29 Nov. 2013.
What is Autism? It’s a developmental disorder that impairs one’s ability to communicate and interact with others. Christopher Boone from the novel A Curious Incident in the Nighttime and Temple Grandin, who has become one of the top scientists in the humane livestock handling industry both fall on the high-functioning spectrum of autism. Even so, they do not display the exact same traits and behaviors. Whereas Grandin thinks in pictures and employs this unique gift for practical use, Christopher thinks in patterns and fails communicate his talents with others. However, they both speak their mind and have trouble understanding facial expressions and emotions.
Regardless of the disagreement between both schools of philosophy that Rene Descartes and David Hume founded, Descartes’s rationalism and Hume’s empiricism set the tone for skepticism regarding knowledge. Rene Descartes rationalism served to form a solid foundation for true knowledge. Although Descartes reaches an illogical conclusion, his rationalism was meant to solve life’s problem by trusting and using the mind. David Hume’s empiricism serves to be the true blueprint on how humans experience the mind. Hume’s empiricism shows that the world only observes the world through their own sense and that there are no a priori truths. For that reason it became clearer that David Hume’s empiricism explains and demonstrates that it is the better way
The philosopher, Linda Zagzebski, offers a virtue based definition of knowledge. She arrives at this definition by presenting numerous accounts of knowledge definitions that fail, explore why they fail, then shows how her theory satisfies knowledge criteria.
While Descartes believes this to be incredibly fundamental to human knowledge, there have been several critiques of this over the years. One example that goes against mental transparency is Freud’s idea of the unconscious min...
He claims that knowledge is the most essential mental state which therefore cannot be reduced to basic mental states such as belief and justification. This argument is supported by the idea that knowledge is the basis of what we perceive. This is validated by the fact that false knowledge cannot exist, whereas false belief can. Williamson provides an example of this through the idea of the Earth being flat. Those who believed the Earth was flat had believed falsely that they knew the Earth was flat. False knowledge cannot exist because it would require the Earth to be
Consciousness is something that is experienced on the daily basis, whether we are describing our awareness or perception of the physical world. David Chalmers provides his insight on consciousness by first identifying the easy problems presented by consciousness, then the hard problem that is puzzling and one that can’t be fully explained. The hard problem serves as crucial topic has sparked many philosophers to attempt to provide a solution for this problem. To Chalmers, the hard problem involves our experience. Ned Block responds to hard problem by providing his ideology of the epistemic gap that exists between phenomenal consciousness and access consciousness.
Alexander, J., & Weinberg, J. (2009, January 1). The "Unreliability" of Epistemic Intuitions . . Retrieved May 2, 2014, from http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/academics/schools_and_departments/school_of_liberal_arts/philosophy/Alexander%20&%20Weinberg.The%20Unreliability%20of%20Epistemic%20Intuitions.pdf
Gardner, H. (2011). FRAMES OF MIND: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Knowledge can be achieved either through the justification of a true belief or for the substantive externalist, through a “natural or law like connection between the truth of what is believed and the person’s belief” (P.135). Suppose a man named George was implanted with a chip at birth, which causes him to utter the time in a rare Russian dialect. His girlfriend Irina, who happens to speak the same Russian dialect, realizes that every time she taps his shoulder, he tells her the time and he is always right. She knows that he is right because she checks her watch. Because she thinks this is cute, she never tells him what it is that he is saying. One day, Irina’s watch breaks but instead of getting it fixed, she just taps George on the shoulder whenever she needs to ask for the time.
Sternberg, Robert J. & Janet E. Davidson, eds. 1995. The Nature of Insight. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
In this paper I will explain what objective knowledge is and why we can have objective knowledge. I will clearly define several key terms that are crucial to this discussion. With these definitions in mind, I will explain the necessity of objective knowledge for reason and reality. Then, I will outline and expound on a reduction absurdum argument, explaining the contradictory postulate and exposing a contradiction. Finally, I will describe the view of Global Skepticism, and show how the Global Skeptic lives in opposition to his or her outlook. Through these arguments, it will be apparent that logic and reality demand the existence of objective knowledge.